Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5055 - 1272, 1276, 1282 Route 28 Design Review Comments July 18 2023YARM01 I i H IfF01 WAN, 01_ER< Review is. Conceptual [9 Formal IN Binding ( 404 MotelsNCOD/R.O.A.D. Project) Non -binding (All other commercial projects) Review is by: © Planning Board Design Review Committee DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) - COMMENT SHEET ORC comments which are provided to the Planning Boardl Meeting Date: July 18, 2023 - Room BNirtual Map: 60 Lots: 130, 131 & 132 Applicant: Ekaterina & Family, LLC & Jay Imad Zone(s): ROAD Optional Overlay District Site Location: 1272, 1276 & 1282 Route 28, South Yarmouth, MA Persons Present: DCR Members Present Yarmouth Town Staff Present Guests Dick Martin KathyWilliams Halim Choubah, CEG Sara Porter Attorney Paul Tardif Charlie Adams Jay Imad Steve O' Neil DRC Review for this project started at: 4:01 PM DRC Review for this project ended at: 4:38 PM Project Summary General Descriation: The Applicant seeks to develop the project using Zoning Bylaw Section 411— Revitalization Overlay Architectural District (ROAD). The DRC had reviewed two previous ROAD Applications from this applicant back in May of 2022 (ROAD #2022-1) and October 2022 (ROAD #2022-2). The Applicants have resubmitted the project to try to address comments received during the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) Public Hearing on the #2022- 2 application which was ultimately withdrawn without prejudice. This modified project (ROAD #2023-1) would demolish all existing buildings on three adjoining properties and construct a gasoline filling station with four dispensers and overhead canopy, a single story 3,890 sf convenience store with coffee shop and drive-thru, a separate 3,755 sf two-story building with four (4) residential units, and various site improvements. The lots currently contain five cottages, a convenience store and two gas pumps with canopy. For ROAD projects, the Planning Board serves as the Design Review Authority and will be holding their Public Hearing on August 16, 2023. The application is also distributed to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for their input and comments which will be provided to the Planning Board. The standard for the optional ROAD overlay district is substantial adherence to the Architectural and Site Design Standards ("Design Standards"). Summary of Presentation: Hal Choubah noted the previous ROAD submissions which were generally viewed favorable by the DRC. The Planning Board did approve ROAD project #2022-2 to proceed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA had some issues that needed work, so the Applicant withdrew without prejudice so they could revise the plans. Mr. Choubah reviewed the new plans, noting the changes and improvements including separation of the commercial and residential into two buildings. The issues identified by the ZBA were related to the residential parking in the northwest corner and conflict with drive-thru, inadequate parking for the uses, and having the mixed -use building. The new layout has a separate residential building on the east side with parking located directly behind and more residential parking added. The pickup window was relocated to the west side of the building to provide more buffer to the residences to the north and increased the queue length of the drive-thru. The parking in the northwest corner is limited to staff only. Also added landscape on the northern buffer and added trees. Mr. Choubah feels this is a win -win. He indicated the building architecture was modified to meet the ROAD bylaw. The Convenience Store looks more like a 1-1/2 story building with dormers and the residential is a 2-story building. The finishes are identical to the previous applications with white trim with gray color earth tones to mimic the nearby village setting. He noted the improvements to the circulation on the site. DRC Questions & Discussions: Sara Porter felt the plan was terrific, was a superior solution and the buildings looked good. Her only concern was with the queuing in the drive-thru impacting the access to the residential parking. Kathy Williams noted 10 spaces at 23' long is required for the drive-thru. Mr. Choubah noted that the queuing was increased to more than 10 spaces without impacting access. The circulation is two-way except around the convenience store which is one-way. Charlie Adams thinks the plans are better than before and should meet all the requirements. He asked if the pumps were the same number, which they are (four pumps). He inquired about the changes in lighting so there won't be impacts to the neighbors in the back. Mr. Choubah noted that the lighting plan was submitted and reduced the intensity under the canopy with zero footcandle spillage at the property lines. Steve O'Neil agreed they did a great job and listened to comments from boards/committees and staff. Mr. O'Neil inquired about the residential parking interfering with the pumps and safety for residents leaving their parking area, and whether there is enough distance to accommodate traffic with sight distances. Mr. Choubah noted that there is a landscape island separating the two uses and the distance from the access drive to residential parking is 80' into the property. Mr. Choubah noted that a stop sign and stop bar could be added at the exit to the residential parking. Dick Martin concurred with the Committee that everything looks good, the building design is very nice. He inquired about what would be upstairs in the commercial building. Mr. Choubah indicated he would need to look into this further and may only be a small office. Mr. Martin noted six parking spaces that serve the store with additional spaces at the pumps. Mr. Martin noted the nice landscaping with irrigation and the importance of proper maintenance of landscaping. Mr. Martin noted the one-way signs at the driveway exit and that the relief needed in outlined in the narrative. He felt this would be viewed better by residential abutters. Sara Porter noted that the shed dormer on the west side could be smaller as the space isn't needed upstairs. Mr. Choubah indicated it could be smaller with one less set of windows. Review Comments In Relation To The Design Standards As a ROAD project, the Siting and Building Strategies were reviewed for substantial adherence to the Architectural and Site Design Standards SITING STRATEGIES Sect. 1. Streetscape N/A x Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: The new buildings front on the street with street facing windows and entrances. Sect. 2. Tenant Spaces x N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: Sect. 3. Define Street Edge N/A © Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: The new buildings have been located closer to the street and the street edge is further defined with a front buffer with plantings and irrigation. Sect. 4. Shield Large Buildings O N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies Sect. 5. Design a 2"d Story N/A x Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: The residential building has two stories. No second story is provided on the convenience store in order to separate the commercial and residential uses. Sect. 6. Use T000 to Screen New Development 19 N/A 0 Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies. REC YARM t6 NTH TE IW C EERK Sect. 7. Landscape Buffers/Screening N/A © Meets Standards. or Discrepancies: a 3_$ qL_ E yG} '_ Buffers with detailed landscaping plan and irrigation are provided, along with an 8' acoustic fencing abutting the residential zone to the north and a 6' high fence within the buffer area along the eastern property line. Sect. 8. Parking Lot Visibility N/A 19 Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: The parking areas are located to the side and rear of the new buildings, include two in -lot trees with additional screening through landscaped buffers. Sect. 9. Break up Large Parking Lots N/A © Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: The design may be considered to substantially adhere to the design standards as the parking areas have been broken up into three separate areas, the amount of pavement has been reduced to that needed for circulation, and buffer screening has been provided. Sect. 10, Locate Utilities Underground N/A x Meets Standards, or Discrepancies Sect. 11. Shield Loading Areas N/A x Meets Standards, or Discrepancies. The loading zone is shielded with buffer plantings and will only have intermittent use. BUILDING STRATEGIES: Sect. 1. Break Down Building Mass — Multiple Bldgs. © N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies Sect. 2, Break Down Building Mass — Sub -Masses x N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: Sect. 3. Vary Facade Lines N/A © Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: Convenience Store: The convenience store building includes modulations on all four sides. The east elevation is slightly longer at 54' but may be considered to substantially adhere to the Design Standards as there is a large porch at the entrance to break up the fagade lines. Residential. The residential building is less than 50' long and includes variations in the fagade at the entrances and for the sprinkler room. Sect. 4. Vary Wall Heights N/A © Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: Sect. 5. Vary Roof Lines N/A x Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: Sect. 6. Bring Down Building Edges N/A x Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: Sect. 7. Vary Building Mat'Is For Depth N/A x Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: Sect. 8. Use Traditional & Nat'l. Building Mat'Is N/A © Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: Modern materials are used for longevity and low maintenance but look like traditional building materials. Sect. 9. Incorporate Pedestrian -scaled Features N/A x Meets Standards, or Discrepancies Sect. 10, Incorporate Energy -efficient Design N/A 0 Meets Standards, or Discrepancies: Next step for applicant: 9 Go to Planning Board Return to Design Review for Formal Review On a motion by Sara Porter, and seconded by Charlie Adams, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted 4-0) to approve these DRC Comments as meeting minutes for the July 18, 2023 DRC meeting related to the proposed modified redevelopment at 1272, 1276 & 1282 Route 28 using the ROAD overlay district. 9rj3JF i2 r - r r Received by Applicant(s) ATTACHMENTS: ' ' ' `l " July 18, 2022 Agenda July 14, 2023 Memo from Town Planner Kathy Williams and Aerial ROAD Application 2023-1: o ROAD Application Form o Project Narrative o June 6, 2023 Site Plan Review (SPR) Comments o Supplemental information submitted July 18, 2023 8' Acoustic Fence Detail Proposed Apartment Front Elevation - Colored Proposed Convenience Store Front Elevation - Colored Site Plans: All plans prepared by Choubah Engineering Group, dated June 20, 2023: Cover Sheet Demolition and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Erosion Control Details & Notes Site Layout & Fuel Truck Access Plan Grading & Drainage Plan Utility Plan Landscape Layout & Fire Apparatus Access Plan Lighting Plan Site Details #1 Site Details #2 Site Details #3 Underground Fuel Storage Tanks Details Architectural Plans: All plans prepared by Choubah Engineering Group, dated June 20, 2023: Proposed Convenience Store Building Floor Layout Proposed Convenience Store Building Elevations Proposed Residential Building Floor Layout Proposed Residential Building Elevations Canopy Elevations & Details Existing Conditions Plan: Prepared by Borderland Engineering, Inc, dated December 7, 2021